22 DOP, were convicted for being accomplices to the crime of murder, imposing the sentence of three (3) years and six (6) months of imprisonment.56 76. One of the convicts and the defense counsel appointed by the Court respectively filed an appeal against said judgment.57 On August 1, 2008, the Superior Court of the Judicial District of La Paz upheld the Judgment of January 8, 2008.58 On August 14 and 29, 2008, the defense counsel appointed by the Court of the convicted and one of the convicts,59 respectively, filed a writ of cassation against the last judgment, which resolution is still pending to the date of this Judgment. * * * 77. Based on the facts previously established and proven, the Court shall now proceed to analyze the following considerations of law. A) Regarding the relatives of Renato Ticona a) Clarifications regarding Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention 78. This Tribunal has pointed out that Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention determine, with regard to the actions and omissions of internal judicial authorities, the scope of the principle of State responsibility for the actions of any State organ60. Furthermore, the Court has pointed out that as a consequence of the general obligation to guarantee established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, there are certain obligations of States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction61. This Tribunal has asserted that, in order to comply with the general duty to guarantee rights, the States Parties are required not only to prevent, but also to investigate the human rights violations recognized in the Convention, as the ones alleged in the instant case, and also, to seek the restoration of the violated right, if possible, and 56 On January 10, 2008, the attorney of Ticona Estrada's family requested the Third Magistrate's Court on Criminal Matters of the Judicial District of La Paz an amendment of the judgment, so that the persons were sentenced for the crime of forced disappearance of people, which is an illicit act established in Article 292 bis of the Criminal Code (Appendices to the response to the petition, Appendix 3, Volume 12, p. 4745 to 4747). On January 11, 2008, said Court, by means of resolution No. 004/2008 rejected the request (Appendices to the response of the petition, Appendix 3, Volume 12, p. 4751). 57 Cf. Report of the Judiciary of Bolivia before the Court regarding the case: “Office of the Public Prosecutor and National Commission of Forced Disappeared against Roberto Melean, René Veizaga Vargas for the crimes of murder and others” (record of documents presented by the State during the public hearing of August 13, 2008, Appendix 1, p. 4952 to 4956). 58 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Superior Court of the Judicial District of La Paz, on August 1, 2008 (record of documents presented by the State during the public hearing held on August 13, 2008, Appendix 5, 5007 to 5015). 59 Cf. Writ of cassation filed by the defense attorney of Ticona Estrada’s family on August 14, 2008 and by one of the convicts on August 29, 2008 (Appendices to the final written arguments of the State, page. 5358 to 5386 and 5310 to 5350). 60 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 16, para. 164, 169 and 170; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 10, para 60; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 140. 61 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 1 para. 91; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, supra note 17 para. 34; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 141.